On May 25, 10:41*pm, lu6etj wrote:
Is not possible you are using different models to describe an only one
phenomenon?, as looking at the same cat from their muzzle or from his
tail believing each one his cat is the true or real "cat" :)

Dr. Corum tells us what the problem is: "Lumped circuit theory fails
because it's a *theory* whose presuppositions are inadequate. Every EE
in the world was warned of this in their first sophomore circuits
course. ... The engineer must either use Maxwell's equations or
distributed elements to model reality. ... Distributed theory
encompasses lumped circuits and always applies."

In particular, *energy flow* is not addressed at all in the lumped
circuit model. Some RF gurus are so confused that they imply that
there is no Poynting vector power density in reflected waves. Their
basic error (for the past 8 years) is that they believe there is no
mechanism outside of the reflection model that can redistribute the
reflected energy. But what can happen to reflected energy has been
known for decades in the field of optical physics. The reflection that
one sees in a mirror contains an ExH power density that activates
one's human retina. Waves cannot exist without energy. Standing waves
cannot exist without forward and reverse traveling waves. That some
otherwise knowledgeable and influential RF gurus deny the reality of
such is really sad.

What they are missing is simple. The FSU web page describes how wave
cancellation redistributes the reflected energy back toward the load
from what is essentially a Z0-match. The redistribution of reflected
energy due to wave cancellation is technically NOT a re-reflection
since it involves destructive interference between TWO waves. When the
RF gurus broaden their knowledge base to include wave cancellation,
they will alleviate their ignorance on how reflected energy is
redistributed back toward the load. That knowledge can be obtained
from any good optics reference book including "Optics", by Hecht and
"Principles of Optics", by Brown and Wolf. Until those gurus admit to
themselves that they are not omniscient, the argument will continue.

I finished reading Cecil's article (http://www.w5dxp.com/nointfr.htm)

Remember that article describes the two special cases where the two
superposed waves are 90 degrees apart and therefore do not interfere
with each other, i.e. no wave cancellation exists. I have not yet
written the other two articles about constructive and destructive
interference.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com